Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is well described in the literature, including characterizations of its risk factors, manifestations, and consequences. There is, however, limited research on interventions, particularly those at the hospital level, to address the issue. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:From March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, a multidisciplinary team conducted a three-cycle Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) process to develop, test, and implement an electronic medical record (EMR) order set to directly refer patients to a hospital-based financial assistance program. The cycles included an assessment of the efficacy of our current practice in connecting patients experiencing financial hardship with assistance, the development and piloting of the EMR referral order, and the broad implementation of the order set across our institution. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In PDSA cycle 1, we found that approximately 25% of patients at our institution experienced some form of financial hardship, but most patients were not connected to available resources because of our referral mechanism. In PDSA cycle 2, the pilot referral order set was deemed feasible and received positive feedback. Over the 12-month study period (March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022) of PDSA cycle 3, 718 orders were placed for 670 unique patients across interdisciplinary providers from 55 treatment areas. These referrals resulted in at least $850,000 in US dollars (USD) in financial aid in 38 patients (mean = $22,368 USD). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The findings from our three-cycle PDSA quality improvement project demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of interdisciplinary efforts to develop a hospital-level financial toxicity intervention. A simple referral mechanism can empower providers to connect patients in need with available resources.

A cancer diagnosis can upend work and family life, leading patients to reallocate resources away from essentials such as food. Estimates of the percentage of people navigating a cancer diagnosis and food insecurity range between 17% and 55% of the cancer patient population. The complexity of addressing food insecurity among those diagnosed with cancer during different phases of treatment is multifactorial and often requires an extensive network of support throughout each phase. This commentary explores the issue of food insecurity in the context of cancer care, explores current mitigation efforts, and offers a call to action to create a path for food insecurity mitigation in the context of cancer. Three programs that address food insecurity among those with cancer at various stages of care are highlighted, drawing attention to current impact and actionable recommendations to make programs like these scalable and sustainable. Recommendations are grounded in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine social care framework through 5 essential domain areas: awareness, adjustment, assistance, alignment, and advocacy. This commentary seeks to highlight opportunities for the optimization of cancer care and reframe food access as an essential part of treatment and long-term care plans.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS:Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS:Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess the prevalence of socioeconomic needs and associations between housing characteristics and food insecurity among low-income cancer patients, among whom housing and food insecurity are particularly prevalent. METHODS:Low-income cancer patients in active treatment (N = 1618) were enrolled in a comprehensive patient navigation program. Food insecurity was assessed using the 18-item US Department of Agriculture US Household Food Security Survey Module. Participants self-reported their need for assistance with housing issues/type of assistance needed, perception of overcrowding, satisfaction with living situation, and household density via a cross-sectional survey. Descriptive analyses, cross-tabulations and tests of proportions, and binary logistic regression were used in data analyses. RESULTS:Seventy percent of patients were food insecure. Housing characteristics associated with food insecurity were homelessness or living in sheltered/supportive housing (83.3% food insecure), renting (71.9%), and homeownership (58.1%; p < .001); living situation satisfaction (not satisfied, 79.4%; somewhat satisfied, 25.6%; very satisfied, 66%; p < .001); need of housing assistance (79.2%; p < .001), and feeling crowded in their living unit (77.6%; p < .05). Associations of living unit type with food insecurity were significant in the binary logistic regression model (renters 1.68 OR, homeless/sheltered housing 2.80 OR vs homeowners). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The vulnerability to food insecurity of patients in this low-income sample was underlined by the high rates found, and clear associations with housing characteristics of homelessness, housing assistance needs, and feeling overcrowded were identified. These results could help shape priorities around screening patients for nutrition and housing needs and developing interventions to address them.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Racial/ethnic minorities experience greater job loss than whites during periods of economic downturn and after a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, race/ethnicity-matched controls are needed to distinguish the impact of illness on job loss from secular trends METHODS: Surveys were administered during and 4-month post-completion of breast cancer treatment. Patients were pre-diagnosis employed women aged 18-64, undergoing treatment for stage I-III breast cancers, who spoke English, Chinese, Korean, or Spanish. Each patient was asked to: (1) nominate peers who were surveyed in a corresponding timeframe (active controls), (2) report a friend's work status at baseline and follow-up (passive controls). Both types of controls were healthy, employed at baseline, and shared the nominating patient's race/ethnicity, language, and age. The primary outcome was number of evaluable patient-control pairs by type of control. A patient-control pair was evaluable if work status at follow-up was reported for both individuals. RESULTS:Of the 180 patients, 25% had evaluable active controls (45 patient-control pairs); 84% had evaluable passive controls (151 patient-control pairs). Although patients with controls differed from those without controls under each strategy, there was no difference in the percentage of controls who were working at follow-up (96% of active controls; 91% of passive controls). However, only 65% of patients were working at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients had evaluable passive controls. There was no significant difference in outcome between controls ascertained through either method IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Passive controls are a low-cost, higher-yield option to control for secular trends in racially/ethnically diverse samples.

Taxi and for-hire vehicle (FHV) drivers are a largely immigrant, low-income occupational group at increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Poor dental health is a CVD risk factor, and dental care access is an unexamined taxi/FHV driver CVD risk factor. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 422 taxi/FHV drivers (2016-2017) to identify predictors of access to dental health care among drivers. One-third (n = 128, 30.3%) reported needing dental care/tests/treatment within the past six months, and nearly one-half (n = 61, 48%) were delayed/unable to obtain care. Only 57.6% (n = 241) had past-year dental cleanings. Not having enough money to cover household expenses was a significant predictor of being delayed/unable to obtain needed dental care/tests/treatment in the prior six months (0.5 OR; 95% CI, 0.28-0.89; p < .05). Lack of dental insurance coverage (2.72 OR; 95% CI, 1.60-4.63; p < .001) or lack of primary care provider (2.72 OR; 95% CI, 1.60-4.63; p < .001) were associated with lack of past-year dental cleaning. Seventeen percent of drivers with Medicaid were unaware of their dental coverage, which was associated with both inability to access needed dental care/tests/treatment in the past 6 months (p = .026) and no past-year dental cleaning (p < .001). Limited understanding of dental coverage was associated with both an inability to access needed dental care/tests/treatment in the past 6 months (p = .028) and lack of past-year dental cleaning (p = .014). Our findings can inform targeted intervention development to increase taxi/FHV driver dental care access/uptake, potentially improving their CVD risk.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, approximately 70% of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries.¹ About 1.3 million new cancer cases and 666,000 cancer deaths were estimated to have occurred in 2018 in Latin America and the Caribbean. Cancer is also the leading cause of death of Latinos in the U.S., accounting for approximately 42,700 deaths/year in the U.S. Latino population.² This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.